Elerond

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JzpZmWf7LHI I don't know about bending iron bars, but breaking them is possible. I don''t know was that bar in video hardened, which could explain why it breaks down.

My opinion is that rest spamming itself is not the real problem, but the thing that drives people to rest spam.

How about a metal coin as a backer reward for $140 or $250 and upper tiers And for example a coin which came in TES IV: Oblivion 's collector edition box.

In D&D resurrection causes also permanent level drop or - 2 to CON, if charcters is on level 1. And of course it uses diamonds worth a total of at least 10,000 gp as material component. These features are usually left out from computer games where player can freely use save and load functions, because players usually load instead accepting such punishment.

My guess is that we will go over 400 members.

Firkaag can be tricky if you give him even changes, but because BG2's bad AI design you can kill him very easily if you want and with right build you don't even need to cheat

Yes I have. But for me there was not even one fight that needed more than 5 reloads. So in my books it is ok in this segment.

Kicktraq projection give somewhat good picture where PE will end. With flat, near median, daily pledges it will go over 2.6 million and with usual end surge it can go over 3 million.

I don't have definite answer for that. But if you need reload 25 times to get past an encounter then there is in my opinion a design flaw, because I don't think that most of the gameplay time should consist same fight over and over again, especially in rpgs where combat should not be the main point of the game. But of course there should be risk of dying to force player to plan his or her actions in combat and even considere non-combat options. I think that balance is the key, but I don't have enough game design skill to say how to achieve that balance.

Magic system in Baldur's Gates had other flaws than rest spamming (which really was more a symptom, than cause). Low level wizards often could not perform their planned role and were often pushed as background ournament slinger. And on medium levels they usually could take care of the encounters by themselves but usually they had enough spells for one to three encounters, where big part of players used rest spamming as answer. And in some encounters wrong spell selection forced player to load and change his or her spell and try again (and this is not strategic or tactical thing as most cases player didn't have any advance warning of what they spells they will need in upcoming encounter). And there is also other flaws in that system, so I am all for to try fix these flaws but still have best parts of that system. If cooldowns is one of the mechanics which they think gives them ability to do so, then I am okey to see what they can come up to and not shoot them down, because one of the many mechanics what they have plan to use is cooldowns. When they have more than only faded outline about their system, I can give my judgement that will it or will it not work better than D&D's system in IE games. Now I can only say that they right with their statement that magic (and combat system overall in IE games was flawed) and they should be careful to not transfer those flaws on their new system. And their design goals, keep good things from IE games, fix flaws and bring something new on the table, strike for me to be just right kind of attitude, but maybe that is just me not understanding perfectness of the old system.

In my opinion it's bad design if difficulty level is measured by how many times player need to reload. Old games did often go with that design as it was easiest way for the designers as you only needed to plan one way to win encounter. Of course in some games this design works, like in King Quest which made try and die an art form. But in my opinion in roleplaying games one should balance game so that it can be played in with ironman -like option without absolute perfect knowledge about the game.

You should remember that their systems changes or maybe better term would be become more precise every day as they are still in planning place where they try to find right mechanics that allow such magic system which fulfil their overall goal to make combat system which need as much strategic planning for resources and tactical usage of those resources as sytem in IE games, but don't have same flaws. And Josh has stated that he don't believe that their sytem will be fully composed even in end of the kickstarter campaing. So you can expect sytem become more precise in following week and mechanics to change. And of course one should also remember that magic system is only one part of the combat system and therefore as other classes also change from that how they worked in D&D, they must also keep them in mind when they balance their magic system.

That is like suggesting to a politician that he should only suggest things that has no cons. But we don't live in a perfect world. People who can't see, or admit to, both sides of an idea literally scares me. Your example is somewhat misleading. Because my point was that in game design you know what is the goal which you want to achive with your sytem. This gives you to opportunity try design your sytem to use such mechanics that allow it to achive that goal without cons considering your goal, but in case where that is not possible you should accept this compromise only in end of the designing phase and choose those mechanics which offers need for least compromise. But if you start your designing with attidude that it's ok to have a flawed system because world is not perfect, then you will most likely create a flawed system.

I think you missunderstood. That's what they will try to avoid. I want them to be more forthcoming in this matter i.e. "ok we're going to use this despite this and that con because we still think it's better than this and that alternative". Some self-criticism with the proposed system is what I'm looking for instead of just criticizing other systems. Turning a blind eye to that is not really helping the discussion imo. It's like they've already made up their minds. I don't see any point in that. If you know that there is con in your system you should look ways to get rid of that con instead to admit defeat and leave it to be, especially so early in development. In my opinion they should do just what they are doing, so to look what didn't work so well in past, look ways to fix that, look problems what fix can bring with it and ways to avoid those problems.

If they'll use cooldowns in ANY form they are certain to bring some cons with them. I don't think they have acknowledged any of those cons with the system they are aiming for. Or have they? Yes they have. For example Josh stated that he don't want rest spamming change to waiting around for cooldowns counters to go zero.

unless the battles are designed so that you need different tactics for different encounters. The keys then are to design spells so there aren't "best" spells and to design encounters so they aren't all the same. I'm not saying I want that design, but it can theoretically be done without removing tactics or challenge. Even with explicitly designed encounters, to cover up such a horrible bland system, it would be boring. Period. Seriously think about it. Imagine in BG you have access to EVERY SPELL (appropriate to your level) at EVERY encounter. There is no meaningful tactics. There is no Challenge. Is boring. And there is NO sense of tension. It's just YAWN, next battle. Have you played game with sorcerer, because that class fullifies your description quite well, but with that exception that it's not boring or unchallengin and it don't kill tension from the game.

Yes fixing rest spamming problem would be great but not at the cost of introducing COOLDOWNS! IMO they seem to have been pretty locked on using cooldowns from the beginning. I have yet to hear them say ANYTHING bad about them. Most mechanics have cons but if you're partial you won't mention them. Mechanics have their cons. Josh has stated some of cons what cooldown mechanic can have and said that he want to avoid them. But in their updates they have focused on to explain how and why they want to change old system. Maybe they should have added to their explanation how they avoid or try avoid known issues with their mechanics, so that people wouldn't dispute their ideas so much, but then they also could loose some of the input what they want to get with their updates.

Uhh, I forqot those. But now that I think it Alpha Protocol's system worked relatively well.

EXACTLY! The thing that troubles me the most is that I've heard Obsidian talk about how bad the old vancian and resting system is... BUT not a word of criticism towards cooldowns (I may have missed some announcement and if I have, please tell). It would be nice if they at least acknowledged the flaws of that system in the same way. That is probably because they have not done any games with cooldown sytem yet, but they have done games with vancian system. So for them prespective is what went wrong in our previous games and how we can make it better. And your perspective to subject is that you like more of the system which obsidian did in past than of those systems that is now made by other companies. But Obsidian has commented that they want keep those features from their previous games which people have said to like about them. This features include strategic spell planning and tactical spell use, but they also have said that they want get rid of some features which most of the players didn't like, these include rest spamming, wizards that can't carry their weight in combat and etc.. And so they try to make new system which can offer best features from their previous games, but change those not so good features. That is why they are throwing around ideas how they could do that and see what ideas people like most and which they absolute don't like. They probably keep doing that until they have system which they like and most of the active backers like and from 5-6 months from today we will or at least they will have full picture how their system will work.

It's not the same thing. Two classes meant to fill the same role, melee combat, can not be equal. One does the job better. A mace is not the same as sword, one does better against armored target, and the other does better against unarmored target. A pistol is not the same as rifle, one is used for medium range combat and the other for long range combat. And you can't balance a whole class in a way you would a weapon, you can't make monks bad against plates because that would mean your party sucks if it doesn't have fighter, and you can't make fighter bad against unarmored because your party would suck if you don't have monk. A person can carry multiple weapons and switch between them, you can't "carry" multiple extra classes just to cover all things, it makes for bad game play experience and totally limits your party choices. So no, it's not even close to same thing. In class design there is three major routes what you can go. Classless sytem where only characters skills give limitation to what that character can do, Skyrim goes for example of game which uses this approach. Then there is option number two where there is only one class per role, Dragon Age uses this design. Then there is dungeon & dragon approach where we have multiple classes for each role which take little different approach to fullify that role, this system also gives that option that one class can do multiple role, but don't necessary fullfit those roles as good as other classes but gives more flexibility for your character. I would like to take your pistol versus rifle argument and chage it for bit. In my example we compare M-16 and AK-47 (they were choosed because they are classic movie weapons and so probably best known). M-16 offer longer range, lighter weight for weapon, ammunition and clips and you can add more toys (like laser sight, scope, etc.) to it without modifications. Were AK-47 offers cheaper manufacturing costs, better penetration and it is more reliable in harsh conditions. And now try to decide which of this weapons are better suited to be assault rifle and why. Answer is both are well suited to fill that role, because there is combats where other is better than another. And what I wanted to say with this comparison was that there can easily be multiple classes for same role and none of them is automaticaly inferior to another class.

I would like my pet to be a ghost of some creature who follows my character around. Then you don't need really think why it never dies and why it don't do anything in battles. When every character in your party has some sort magical abilities thanks for soul power conjuring system, so I don't think that unlimited low level spells will make wizard overpowered or god like. And when higher level spell are limited by grimoires and casting limit, that in my opinion will let you experience same tactical and strategic choices what magic system in BGs and IWDs gave to you. And hopefully you need do same choices with other classes, so that wizards and priest aren't only classes with need for tactical mind.

I think those infinitely recastable low-level would be in D&D terms be Level 0 spells. Which were spells what your caster cast when s/he didn't anything else to cast and sometimes not even then. Fireball and stoneskin were medium level spells in D&D. So they are spells to replace sling or darts (which in d&d usually did more damage than level 0 spells).

Ikuisuus: The Watcher's eternal duty (Master of teräs käsi approach )

This is difficult question to answer as we don't know anything about what kind system game will use. In some system you can let characters gain levels endlessly, but in some systems this isn't just possible. And if sytem allows infinite level upping then comes to question game's balance, as can it endure such or will it broke. But in end my opinion is that player should be able to level up until system cap or balance cap.

http://www.sacred-texts.com/neu/kveng/kvrune03.htm Duel of two bards in full length from Kalevala